Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
World-view or belief in God? They're different -- and not mutually exclusive.I am not asking him to tell me the abolsute truth though, in asking him to give a reason his world view is more likely to be true than mine.
Why does it make no sense? If you're working from a different, older, non-standard definition of atheism do et us know, so we're not arguing past each other.Yeah I remember whenever negative athiests pulled that old chestnut. Inherently it makes no sense but I will ignore that to progress the conversation.
OK, so what empirical, reasonable evidence is there for such a being?Let's assume it's a monotheistic perfect being god along the lines of a Protestant Christian theology
I suppose it has been something that's happened relatively recently. Firstly to know why it's so silly u have to understand what it is to lack belief in something.
So let's say Bob is walking around and out of the blue I jump in and tell him there is a big were cat somewhere up the road. Bob has three choices. He either believes me, rejects what I say or witholds judgment. Non of these are a lack of belief. Bob lacked believe in the were cat before I confronted him. That's because he wasn't even aware that there could be a were cat. That is to lack belief in something.
So by your way of reasoning, you believe that God doesn't exist because you have in the past and/or are currently engaging in the conversation that God doesn't exist. Congratulations, you're an atheist.However the athiest is already engaging in the conversation so he can't lack belief in something. He has already shown that he has been confront with the question/statement. I remember hearing an athiest comparing their lack of belief is the same as a babies.
Atheism and agnosticism can be the same thing. You can not believe and not know at the same time.No that's agnosticism.
Isn't that why they sought to clarify the ambiguous definitions, so people wouldn't be talking past each other in discussions like this?a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. This is what an agnostic is. Originally there were three camps in the discussion thiesm, agnosticism and athiesm. One said there was a god the other said there wasn't and the third said the don't know or I can't know.
Then about fifty years ago athiest started pushing this lack of belief to try and push the burden of proof onto the thiests. But they have never claimed they are agnostic in fact that is why they stated lack of belief and not just not knowing.
Mate I think it's u that needs to get the definitions sorted out :S
Exactly! There's no hard evidence at all.U see if there were a pink unicorn I suppose I would expect to see corpses, or shavings, pictures etc. But I don't see those things. Expecting, reasonably, to see evidence in certain places but finding none is evidence against something and while it's easy to do with a horse with a horn, with a diety it's not as clear cut.
Ha. I'm not really a "prove god does not exist" since I wasn't raised abrahamic so don't know what god is to form more than an opinion. Nonetheless, it seems all gods tend to be a part of people's culture, interpretation, and their need to find purpose and meaning. Whether they see it as an incarnation, practice, or experience like a spiritual awakening, it pretty much goes back to humans. Thousands of years ago we used to think we were the center of the universe (maybe hundreds or decades, who knows?). Maybe we used to think gods are actually real just as human beings.
Another thing is we have so many definition of god(s) that to even say one exist and the others do not is really pushing it. Unless one can prove humans don't have a connection and creation with the gods they believe in or experience in practice, I don't really have other arguments. "No evidence" isn't really a thing I use because there is evidence of god and people's experiences of gods just not in the way most atheist on RF tend to define it (and accept from others how it is defined).
Tarasan, if you believe in god (Muslim, Jew, Christian, whomever), how do you define god and prove god's existence outside your own (and other people's) interpretation of it?
Seriously? Lack of evidence against something is evidence for it? Should we believe everything till we find empirical evidence against it?Ok but is there any evidence that there is
We are getting off track, if u believe that u can assert your worldview with no evidence then it goes to say that I can as well. You tell me there is no evidence for god I tell you there is no evidence against God and we both stay in that neutral place merely asserting our views as correct
Huh? Not following. Clarify, please?I mean I could just as easily say to you.
"Do you believe in magic?"
Cause if you say no then you have already employed why people believe there is a creator.
Actually, the God of the bible doesn't 'think' like society thinks. Far from it.
To this God small was big, submission was strength, faith instead of proof
and so on.
And our earth IS the center of the universe, in fact the sun revolves around
the earth - as Einstein put it, the 'observer' is supreme. There is no center
to the universe, YOU are the center. And if an astronaut sees the earth
going around the moon then he is right - he's the observer.
How do you know you are the center of the universe?
Many believed the earth to be flat instead of round. Many people think the earth is a perfect ball, it is not.
How do you know what God thinks?
I would think that since God isn't supposed to be of human they wouldn't and couldn't know what God is and does at all?
So let's see ...
1. no evidence
2. no universal conception
3. doesn't matter/don't care
These seem to be the overwhelmingly predominant "arguments" for atheism.
No. 1. is only a significant point if there were a logical expectation of their being evidence, and we humans were logically expected to be able to identify it as such. I have pointed this out to many an atheist here and elsewhere over the years, and have as yet received no logical reason that we should expect either of these conditions. And yet in spite of this revelation, they inevitably walk away repeating to themselves and everyone else that no evidence is their evidence. Proving to me, at least, that logic and reason are not the intellectual mechanisms by which many atheists become atheist.
No. 2. also relies on a couple of presumptions that are not logically or even reasonably sound. One such presumption is that if God exists, we humans would be universally able to conceptualize the nature and manner of that existence. Yet being that God is generally considered to be the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, and we humans clearly do not yet possess the capacity for understanding this ultimate fundament of existence, I don't see how we could be logically expected to conceptualize it accurately, or universally. These same atheists do not expect scientists to all agree on the origin or conceptualization of the physical universe, and yet they for some odd reason expect theists to all hold the same understanding of God. And yet again, when this blatant double-standard is pointed out to them, they simply walk away repeating their complaint as if reason and hypocrisy were of no consequence to them, at all.
No. 3. I can at least accept for it's honesty, if not necessarily for it's basis in logic. If, from the human perspective, God's nature and existence is not discernible, then why should we waste time trying? And that's a valid question if the premise is true. And the premise is clearly true in terms of our gaining any clear understanding of the nature and existence of God. And the premise would also be true if there were no advantage to be gained for humanity by trying, in spite of the difficulty. But although these points are partly true, they are not entirely true. And especially not entirely true for all of us, all the time. Humanity does gain some understanding of this great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is by our seeking. How accurate that understanding is, is certainly debatable. As it should be. And some of our presumed understanding of the 'god-mystery' is bound to be quite wrong. Yet there are some universal common ideals, and they do bear reasoned consideration (as opposed to a blanket dismissal).
Also, a great many humans do find significant and positive value in the process of contemplating the nature and character of this 'god-mystery'. So much so that even though their conceptualizations of God are constantly changing over time, and even though many of these conceptual characterizations disagree with each other, we humans still develop and pursue them in earnest. A huge majority of us, in fact. And again, these may all or nearly all be wrong, but the universality of this desire is overwhelming, and therefor not to be taken lightly, and dismissed out of hand. To do so may be a legitimate choice, ... but it's not a particularly wise one.
What the atheist arguments all seem to boil down to is resentment based on lack of control. If the atheist can't understand this god-mystery fully, and obviously; then he rejects it entirely. And that's just not a particularly logical or reasonable reaction to theism. At least not to my way of thinking. But I welcome debate.